Abstract

The progressive abstraction and professionalisation of political philosophy over the last few decades has invited a ‘realist’ backlash. This turn to realism has been promoted and defended by various philosophers for a variety of reasons. This article distinguishes the components of the realist challenge to contemporary normative political theory by contrasting the typology of realist theories developed by Michael Doyle with another set out by Raymond Geuss. The resulting categorisation of ‘realisms’ allows for an indirect critique of a univocal realist challenge to normative political philosophy because many of the claims upon which these ‘realisms’ rely are as abstract and theory-laden as the position they challenge.